Are they patrolling or are they docked taking gender identity and inclusion & critical race theory training?I just don't see big war in the modern day with the USA, one Ohio with a full load of W-88s, that's nearly 200 thermonuclear bombs, and it's lights out forever to any country in the world. Act would probably have an idea how many are out on patrol at any given time.
there are 12 ohios.I just don't see big war in the modern day with the USA, one Ohio with a full load of W-88s, that's nearly 200 thermonuclear bombs, and it's lights out forever to any country in the world. Act would probably have an idea how many are out on patrol at any given time.
A ground attack on U.S. soil would certainly make for the most interesting war in quite a long time. I'm not sure if any of them have the balls but at the same time it's now or never, they're unlikely to see another POTUS (and Military) this weak and corrupt for a very long time.
Sounds remarkably like the public education system.The military always, always, ALWAYS whines about how unprepared and underfunded it is. How else can they justify constantly haranguing for more and more money, materials, etc? Tell me a time when the military, any military, said, "Nope. We're all good. We have everything we need."
The military always, always, ALWAYS whines about how unprepared and underfunded it is. How else can they justify constantly haranguing for more and more money, materials, etc? Tell me a time when the military, any military, said, "Nope. We're all good. We have everything we need."
No nation state will ever use a nuclear weapon. The risk of retaliation is too great a horror to take. Once used, the Rubicon is crossed and the other side may respond with equal or greater force. The idea of a "limited" nuclear exchange is fine in theory, but never could one plan for it.
For example, say Ukraine blows up and Russia invades - and starts really kicking butt. The USA decides to launch a "limited" volley of one (1) or two (2) small nukes to cripple Russian forces. What stops Russia from responding with five (5) or ten (10) nuclear weapons? Nothing! Then what? We launch 15 - 20. They launch 30 - 50. Limited cannot be counted on.
Or, Russia responds with an equal number of nukes, but targets major US military bases in the region. There is parity in numbers but NOT in damages. What would we then do? Nuke their bases and pray to Jesus they don't respond - because we cannot control how they will respond.
When you're in a fight you only get to really control one fighter - you. If you pick a fight and start to lose you don't have the opportunity to "stop" the fight. The winner gets to chose that. So starting a fight is easy. Ending a fight? Really, really hard if the winner isn't tired of beating up the loser.
Our military will never be ready. They'll never have enough. Just ask them.
Regards,
Doug
Unfortunately there are more similarities than there used to be.Sounds remarkably like the public education system.
Unfortunately there are more similarities than there used to be.
The problem (I observed) with BIG MIL was (1) there was always more mission than resources, and (2) the people who could throw the BS flag never did because they got there on the backs of extraordinary people.
To @Libertarian01 's point, the PEOPLE in the military always get the job done. (My view being the USAF) that is despite having the Air Staff at the Pentagon (AKA HQ USAF) who seemed really disconnected from reality. That's probably how people at base level viewed Major Commands (at least when I was at one they did.)
Sounds remarkably like the public education system.
And would you maybe feel different, if you were going against people trying to kill you, 5 years after the big budget cuts?
I understand, the government (specifically the military) is a black hole for funds.
Which is why the civilian overseers are supposed to think about that.
But, most wars we've started off with a woefully inadequate force. Which results in more American casualties. And costs more in the long run.
Unfortunately there are more similarities than there used to be.
The problem (I observed) with BIG MIL was (1) there was always more mission than resources, and (2) the people who could throw the BS flag never did because they got there on the backs of extraordinary people.
To @Libertarian01 's point, the PEOPLE in the military always get the job done. (My view being the USAF) that is despite having the Air Staff at the Pentagon (AKA HQ USAF) who seemed really disconnected from reality. That's probably how people at base level viewed Major Commands (at least when I was at one they did.)
And let`s be crystal clear here, it`s certainly about adequate funding and all the hardware we need and want, but it`s also about having the will to win a war. The assortment of fruits and nuts in this current administration don`t have the stomach nor the backbone to do what may have to be done.And would you maybe feel different, if you were going against people trying to kill you, 5 years after the big budget cuts?
I understand, the government (specifically the military) is a black hole for funds.
Which is why the civilian overseers are supposed to think about that.
But, most wars we've started off with a woefully inadequate force. Which results in more American casualties. And costs more in the long run.
No argument from me.
The problems with our educational system are extremely complex. Teacher pay. Classroom discipline. The curriculum. Firing poor teachers. Classroom size. Teaching to tests. Pushing toward college instead of skilled trades OR the military.
Oh yeah, and the Plague. Masks. Online / in class...
I agree overall that most of the "wars" we've gotten into we started under-prepared. WWI and WWII in particular.
But the black hole thing for decades has been a huge problem. President Eisenhower warned of the risk of the military industrial complex. One of the most powerful generals in American history speaking of us needing to be on guard against our own industries and military drive.
Also, we currently spend more than four (4) times what our top two (2) adversaries, China & Russia, spend.
We spent $750 Billion in 2021. China = $237 Billion. Russia = a mere $48 Billion.
Link: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/military-spending-by-country
We should also think about what we truly NEED our military to do. I don't think we have any consensus there.
Sir,
My view is that EVERY system we have is broken. Every single one of them. Health care, education, military, VA, criminal justice, etc etc ad infinitum. To my thinking what happens is that good, bright, flexible people at and near the bottom work like hell in spite of the bureaucracy and system foisted upon them to make things happen.
There isn't a government bureaucracy that isn't carried by the people at the bottom who will never get credit for all the great work they do for the people they serve. But, I do believe that we are coming to a tipping point where all their good work isn't going to be enough and the systems will start to fail (if they haven't already) beyond the good work of the base workers.
Regards,
Doug
If paratroopers land in Florida... hopefully it will be in Polk County.There's no incentive for a ground war on the continental US. What resources are worth the effort? Who can project enough air and naval power to even make it a remote possibility? Nobody. Our enemies do more damage by reducing our faith in our own institutions and dividing us internally then they do by putting a paratrooper in Florida. Today is not colonial war day and we're not worth a resource war. The goal for our enemies is to keep us from projecting power abroad, which is much harder than defending a homeland in terms of manpower, material, morale, etc. There are so many better ways of damaging us via reductions in credability, willingess to fight, economic vulnerabilities, etc that do not risk a nuclear exchange, losing a generation of men, or being exposed as a paper tiger.
I can't remember who.... but after the wall fell, when they wanted to cash in on the "peace dividend", someone said...If it were possible, I would suggest that we spend 100 times what we do currently on national defense and our military. We have peace through power, and power takes a healthy checkbook.
And I beg to differ as to how complex the "problems" with our educational system are. Lids who want to learn, learn. The others are just there to peddle drugs and stir up trouble. It`s a liberal pipe dream that throwing endless piles of money at a problem eventually fix it.
If it were possible, I would suggest that we spend 100 times what we do currently on national defense and our military. We have peace through power, and power takes a healthy checkbook.
And I beg to differ as to how complex the "problems" with our educational system are. Lids who want to learn, learn. The others are just there to peddle drugs and stir up trouble. It`s a liberal pipe dream that throwing endless piles of money at a problem eventually fix it.
It doesn't matter how much money you spend if you let incompetent people run the show.
We could be more effective than we are today on half the budget, if we had competent leaders. That's what matters, way way beyond anything else.
If anything, budgets going to the moon is a fast way to invite incompetent people to run the show and bleed the country dry to line the pockets of a defense contractor.